gamila wrote:more evidence that NS is wrong due to genes for breast cancer

some of these genes are commonthese genes are harmful as they can lead to the death of the person

Why is the death of a person no longer able to breed a bad thing from an evolutionary point of view? It has already been explained why this would be beneficial to the species as a whole, and once again you have declined to address that point.

Why is the death of a person no longer able to breed a bad thing from an evolutionary point of view?

the point is women of child bearing age die of it as wellandchildbearing women pass it on

alsoNS is also about survial of the speciesyou seem to think that non child bearing people are irrrelevant- we are social creatures grand parents play a role -they are not useless for survial of ie kids

you did not select your wife caus you had her genome in front of you -you selected her for social reasons

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

I suggest you read It's a Wonderful Life by Steven J. Gould. It's about the Burgess Shale and deals with many of the questions you have about the Cambrian explosion.

it was due to the cambrain explosion that gould formulated punctuated equilibrium'and it has been shown speciation makes NS wrong

some scientists believe there was indeed an explosion of diversity [cambrian explosion] (the so-called punctuated equilibrium theory elaborated by Nils Eldredge the late Stephen J. Gould - Models In Paleobiology, 1972,

Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) "The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Evolution of Life," in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)

The problem with Evolutionary Theory is it completely ignores the "intelligence" that makes mate-selection choices, or can account for the rate at which "information increase" in a genome can be predicted to be.

I accounted for the Cambrian Explosion and other things ET cannot. Just don't mind the title of the theory which is due to what happens when a theory explaining said phenomena (intelligence) was already proposed and naming it something else gets labeled a "Trojan".

Gamila, the vast majority of cancer occurs in individuals beyond reproductive age. You and I may think grandparents are important but the history of humanity indicates that this is not the case. Until recently, most people knew their grandparents only very early in life before they died and it was almost unheard of for anyone to know their great-grandparents. Today, grandparents and even great-grandparents are becoming much more common, so much so that we can't imagine life without them. But history tells us that their survival into old age is not necessary to the survival of the human species. As for younger women getting infected, those rates are rare, which is exactly what natural selection would indicate they should be.

As for punk-eek, as far as I know it's a pretty solid theory and an important part of the modern synthesis. Would you care to go into more detail as to what are your problems with it? And what's this about speciation? If anything, speciation proves natural selection is right, not wrong.

Gary, glad to see you here to bring at least some respectability to the opposition side of this debate. I have two questions for you, and I know from our previous discussions I can count on you to give intelligent answers, so here you go:

Once again you've made me think with the unconventional manner in which you use the term "intelligence." I would like to ask if you think it's possible that natural selection was responsible for the development of the intelligence that you associate with our mate-selection choices. As a humorous aside, however, I've got a long history of stupid relationship choices that makes me question your entire premise that intelligence has anything at all to do with human mating!

My other question is about the Cambrian explosion. Would you care to comment on some of the explanations given earlier in this thread as to how evolutionary theory might account for it?

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

You and I may think grandparents are important but the history of humanity indicates that this is not the case.

you no nothing of social anthrolopogy or native culturestake africa now with the aids crises childbearing men and women are dying so the grandparent take care of the kidsgrandparent play a big role in the survial of humans - you think our atomised western culture is the norm historically-you are completely wrong

Extended family (or joint family) is a term with several distinct meanings. First, it is used synonymously with consanguineous family. Second, in societies dominated by the conjugal family, it is used to refer to kindred who does not belong to the conjugal family. Often there could be many generations living under the same roof, depending on the circumstances.Extended type of family feels a greater security and belongingness. This is an advantage of extended type of family because this family contains more people to serve as resources during crisis and provides more role models for behaviour of values. The disadvantage of living in an extended type of family is shouldering more expenses for their basic needs.

[edit] Roles and Responsibilities

In extended families the network of relatives acts as a close-knit community. Extended families can include, aside from parents and their children:

In the cultures where the extended family is the basic family unit, growing up to adulthood does not necessarily mean severing bonds between oneself and one's parents or even grandparents. When the child grows up, he or she moves into the larger and more real world of adulthood, yet he or she doesn't, under normal circumstances, establish an identity separate from that of the community....

Workload is equally shared among the members. The women are often housewives and cook for the entire family. The patriarch of the family (often the oldest male member) lays down the rules, works (if not retired) and arbitrates disputes. Other senior members of the household baby sit infants. They are also responsible in teaching the younger children their mother tongue, manners and etiquette. The members of the household also look after each other in case a member is ill.

[edit] Around the world

In many cultures, such as in those of many of the Africans, Koreans, the Middle Easterners, the Jewish family of Central Europe, the Latin Americans, the Indians, the East Asians, the Italians, the Greeks, the Spaniards, the Maori and the Pacific Islanders, extended families are the basic family unit. Cultures in which the extended family is common usually happen to be collectivistic cultures.

Australian Aborigines are another group for whom the concept of family extends well beyond the nuclear model. Aboriginal immediate families include aunts, uncles and a number of other relatives who would be considered "distant relations" in context of the nuclear family. Aboriginal families have strict social rules regarding who they can marry. Their family structure incorporates a shared responsibility for all tasks.[citation needed]

It refers to people related by blood or near age, in contrast to elementary/nuclear family and joint family,

Hereditary breast cancers tend to occur earlier in life than noninherited (sporadic) cases and are more likely to involve both breasts

breast cancer kills all ages - the genes are just siting there ready to go off -they are harmfull genes there are many of them but NS says they should be rare

Would you care to comment on some of the explanations given earlier in this thread as to how evolutionary theory might account for it?

i am not interested in MIGHT or some theory which might explain it some theory which tries and saves NSthe fact is as gould notes right now

Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)

alextemplet wrote:Gary, glad to see you here to bring at least some respectability to the opposition side of this debate.

Thanks again for the compliment Alex!

alextemplet wrote:I have two questions for you, and I know from our previous discussions I can count on you to give intelligent answers, so here you go:

And again I made good on that with putting plenty of thought in my reply. Takes more time but is better than rushing something to you.

alextemplet wrote:Once again you've made me think with the unconventional manner in which you use the term "intelligence."

I see it as the result of forty+ years of staying current on what is known regarding the phenomena of intelligence. The theory is very much based on the work of David Heiserman who is quoted to better define things and U-Mass Professor Arnold Trehub's university level book "The Cognitive Brain" that had me modeling synaptic networks of all sorts way before "neural-net" memories came around. I was lucky to find the best university level science that was around in how-to build self-programming robot books, how-to model brains and such.

These days just mentioning studying "Intelligence" has one automatically stereotyped as an nutter. So I'm now happily with the nutters having to make the theory real for them, or science and the people will suffer even more from system wide neglect even trashing of vital science basics you should have learned at least by high school. I sure think so anyway. What I am saying would then not be as unconventional. The ID movement would have been less of a problem with the theory maybe already accepted in science. Be a brighter future for science.

At least the hoopla over the religious intelligence theory had forums spring up on the internet like mushrooms after a storm to talk about one. So here I am with mine. To me it's just a collection of what I have found out so far about the mechanism that produces intelligence that together makes for a theory that only seems unconventional because you didn't know about science like this all adding up to what it does. You know it makes sense but with natural selection not needed for the theory to stand on its own scientific merit I'm best to leave RM&NS even ET out completely. Would not be the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" any other way. That would take much of the fun out of things.

Your questions will help explain why NS does not at all account for the mechanism in the genome able to create the intelligent entity we see when looking into a mirror.

alextemplet wrote:I would like to ask if you think it's possible that natural selection was responsible for the development of the intelligence that you associate with our mate-selection choices.

All indications are that this question is very easily answered "no". Natural selection can change morphology, but is not responsible for it existing which more has to do with self-assembly and emergent levels of behavior. In a world where food is all liquid we can do without teeth and dentists but in this one we need them. In a land of plenty of where it is not necessary to hunt each other for food animals could be normally confident while alongside each other, instead of instinctually unconfident. Animals would still be there.

alextemplet wrote: As a humorous aside, however, I've got a long history of stupid relationship choices that makes me question your entire premise that intelligence has anything at all to do with human mating!

You're not the only one to mention that! Ironically though, it fits into what I am here saying.

From what I learned studying the C.elegans nematode the origin of sex seems to be based on the birth of an occasional male-only in an easily fertilized population who adds extra excitement to a normally very boring sex-life. Epigenetics may play a role by the inheritable switches to produce males being passed on, then later the unused genes lose their function or take on a new one. What you call "coevolution" would then occur between the sexes, which in turn accounts for the current special-fit machinery.

As long as one can reasonably recognize and mate with their own species there can be males/females. If not then hermaphrodites could have continued to successfully reproduce. Would though lose the benefit of crossover exchange, not that we include that in reasons for selecting a mate either. We do it for the pleasure it brings to the highly confidence boosting sensors located you know where. So none have a choice but to endure the negative effects of that having long ago changed our morphology in a way that has made our hermaphrodite past almost completely gone now.

Unless natural selection is why hydrogen bonds with oxygen but not helium then there would still be genomes and cellular/multicellular animal intelligence.

alextemplet wrote:My other question is about the Cambrian explosion. Would you care to comment on some of the explanations given earlier in this thread as to how evolutionary theory might account for it?

Adding "punctuated equilibrium" and a hundred other things to the scientific vocabulary does not explain the mechanism to account for such a relatively rapid information increase like I could in the middle of the theory. That right there explains what would have been going on at the molecular level of the genome that predicts such curves, exactly. Saying something like that happened is no help at all explaining how it works, to begin with.

Evolutionary Theory can easily be interpreted to predict a linear information increase over time. Was a surprise to even scientists that it was not that way. So it easily misleads in the wrong direction. Does not have an definitive answer either way. There is no exact same curve generated from a simple computer model doing what the genome is doing like there needs to be to be convincing. Especially to those who expect an high school understandable faith-friendly explanation that somehow includes the required intelligence.

alextemplet wrote:As for punk-eek, as far as I know it's a pretty solid theory and an important part of the modern synthesis.

My opinion of the modern synthesis is an overcomplicated mess to teach that still misses what matters the most, the awesomely powerful "intelligence" that makes what a genome can do relatively easy to achieve. Only have to spark it with the four part mechanism I described then it keeps on learning on it's own like the genome does by replicating itself through time. Each lifetime another trip back up to the top of the four part loop demonstrated by the Intelligence Generator/Detector.

In case you are interested here is where I keep my notes and best links of the current work of applying of epigenetics of E.coli to the schematic of the circuit the computer model simulates:

I will now have to update to include that I wrote software in Visual Basic to put all the files that can be dowloaded from the RegulonDB that have strand and location are put into genome. Also wrote another that from that draws all genes arranged in a vertical column showing operons with thicker line around groups with scrollbar that moves it real fast around the genome. I'm ready to draw the arrows showing input, addressing intomemory to flagellum and other things but doing that just right is very heavy into biology. Kind of problem you might like to try solving that doesn't take much typing or hard work. Just need to get the logic of binding sites, promoters and all else into "If...then..." statements and the rest is easy to draw into then make come alive in the picture. Not need the equations that are out there for real time, whatever pace the computer does it will help show how the genome works like that too. Novel way to show the data so someone with a electronics or programming mind but not much about biology..

Gary, once again you've succeeded in making me think. I'm afraid I'm going to have to hold off on responding to your comments about intelligence, since I'd like to take my time reading the links you provided and that's probably going to have to wait until after finals are over, so apologies for the delay with that.

I will, however, explain my thoughts on the cambrian explosion. I don't see it as all that improbable from an evolutionary point of view. Given that the seas where it happened were almost empty of multicellular life, this left open countless niches for an evolving species to exploit. I think the recent development of multicellular animals created the perfect conditions for such an explosion of biodiversity to occur. As I mentioned previously, there's plenty of ways to put multiple building blocks together. If we think of the building blocks as cells being put together into organisms, then I think it's very plausible that all sorts of evolutionary experimentation might have occurred to exploit the many niches available. Factor in the fact that the explosion was not in fact instantaneous but actually took about 50 million years, and I think it's a rather simple matter for evolution to account for the adaptive radiation that we see at this time period. After all, it never takes very long for a single common ancestor to diversify and exploit all sorts of niches in an unexplored habitat. I offer Darwin's finches and the cichlids of Africa's great lakes as examples of this sort of explosion of biodiversity in a relatively short time period.

Lastly, I'd like to ask your opinion on the concept of guided evolution. I realize that sort of question is at best stretching the boundaries of science (in fact, it probably belongs outside of science altogether), but I was just curious if you think it's possible that an intelligent deity would have created life and then allowed it to evolve, possibly intervening from time to time to guide its evolution. This is not too far from what I believe, although I personally think God left it up to natural laws and random chance and kept His interference to a minimum. Yes, not exactly a scientific question I admit, but just asking your opinion while offering my own.

Anyway, I look forward as always to reading your response!

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

alextemplet wrote:Gary, once again you've succeeded in making me think.

I was hoping so!

alextemplet wrote:I'm afraid I'm going to have to hold off on responding to your comments about intelligence, since I'd like to take my time reading the links you provided and that's probably going to have to wait until after finals are over, so apologies for the delay with that.

Good plan. Make sure doing great on finals takes priority over extra-curricula activities. Then study the systems biology info and all else. There is a good amount of information and I would rather you take the time you need.

alextemplet wrote:I will, however, explain my thoughts on the cambrian explosion. I don't see it as all that improbable from an evolutionary point of view.

That's all fine, but having a hunch something is possible still doesn't explain how the mechanism works.

alextemplet wrote:Given that the seas where it happened were almost empty of multicellular life, this left open countless niches for an evolving species to exploit. I think the recent development of multicellular animals created the perfect conditions for such an explosion of biodiversity to occur.

We here have to be very specific as to how "biodiversity" is quantified. In the theory the graph we have to work with is measured by "cell types" not by population growth of something to exploit new niches early cells were likely already exploiting without needing to become multicellular.

When the fossil evidence is used to show biodiversity, even after extinction events the curve goes back to what the computer model predicts.

The thing most important here is how much it looks like beta class intelligence information increase that does correlate with "cell types" whereas new niches to exploit only correlates with "population growth" which could just as well be only the already existing cell types.

The cell types still came relatively suddenly. Why? And was the genome more likely to have once been largely nonfunctional coding or did it start off with just a small number of perfectly coded operons?

Yes on the molecular level functional units of coding are regularly copied, sometimes rearranged. What are they and how does the mechanism that puts them together work? But you can wait on reply to that question until after finals too, I know how hard that one is.

alextemplet wrote:If we think of the building blocks as cells being put together into organisms, then I think it's very plausible that all sorts of evolutionary experimentation might have occurred to exploit the many niches available.

Now you have to explain what makes it possible for cells to easily produce organisms. Where is your computer model of this happening? The best modern synthesis of ET can seem to provide is a microevolution "genetic algorithm" based on the little we know about how the genome works, which right away makes it a very incomplete model of reality. And you're not going to model intelligently mate-selected multicellular macroevolution on your PC even best supercomputer which forces you to find another way to sum up what is going on in the genome to account for what it does.

alextemplet wrote:Factor in the fact that the explosion was not in fact instantaneous but actually took about 50 million years, and I think it's a rather simple matter for evolution to account for the adaptive radiation that we see at this time period. After all, it never takes very long for a single common ancestor to diversify and exploit all sorts of niches in an unexplored habitat. I offer Darwin's finches and the cichlids of Africa's great lakes as examples of this sort of explosion of biodiversity in a relatively short time period.

Inside a 4 billion year span of time 50 million is still a very short moment. Which is why it's still one of the biggest unanswered questions in science. And are the morphological changes recoding of the genome or primarily epigenetic switching? I'm not sure which but doubt the genome is recoding genes back and forth like ET suggests is happening, since without that there is not much left to explain what did the initial DNA coding to produce the seasonally variable sized beaks.

alextemplet wrote:Lastly, I'd like to ask your opinion on the concept of guided evolution. I realize that sort of question is at best stretching the boundaries of science (in fact, it probably belongs outside of science altogether), but I was just curious if you think it's possible that an intelligent deity would have created life and then allowed it to evolve, possibly intervening from time to time to guide its evolution.

I believe that what created us is already everywhere and in everything always guiding our development through time. Because of the way emergence comes up through the levels what we feel and find beautiful is perhaps an expression of behavior from the subatomic on up through the genome to us.

alextemplet wrote:This is not too far from what I believe, although I personally think God left it up to natural laws and random chance and kept His interference to a minimum.

I don't see the Creator requiring a sex or able to want to go somewhere else. Would be made of forces (as studied in physics) and already everywhere at the same time. Express itself through all living things but not like controlling minds it's an "in its image" sort of thing.

I'm still in the middle of getting ready for finals (which is why I took a few days to respond), but I just wanted to point out one thing:

GaryGaulin wrote:That's all fine, but having a hunch something is possible still doesn't explain how the mechanism works.

I understand where you're coming from, but I wouldn't exactly call a theory accepted by the vast majority of scientists a mere "hunch." I also forgot to mention previously the Cambrian explosion is believed to have occurred right around the same time as the development of Hox genes that control the development of an embryo. Experiments have shown that even minor modifications in these control genes can produce significant alterations in the body-plan of the animal. For example, flies have been made to grow legs where their antennae should be by modifying their Hox genes. Given that the definition of "phylum" can be reduced to basically a body-plan, the development and subsequent mutation and diversification of these genes controlling an animal body's development is also believed to have contributed to the sudden explosion of biodiversity in the Cambrian.

I'll have to write more about this later; this shows all signs of turning into a very interesting discussion.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Interesting point, though it is surely not what happens. Let's not forget the average life span of humans before we invented medicine was around 30 or so. It didn't really matter whether you had cancer genes or not, and the alleles persisted through drift. Now because we can make our lifetime 3 times longer, new killers are making their entrance. but as canalon said, even now natural selection can't act, because the traits only manifest after someone has produced offspring. this is how the gene for the debilitating Huntington's disease managed to speak its way past natural selection into our gene pool.

"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

Someone mentioned that grandparents take part in raising their grandchildren, so if the grandparents live long and healthy, it may benefit the grandchildren. This way, diseases that kill people when they are older could actually have an effect by natural selection: those who have healthy grandparents may have a slight advantage and their "long-life" genes could become more common.

I think it's important to remember two things when thinking about this: First, our life span has been considerably longer for a very short period of time, so we do not see any effect yet, because it usually takes quite a long time to notice the effect of natural selection. Second, the effect of grandparents is rather small after all when it comes to the overall picture, so there is also very little evolutionary effect if they happen to die of cancer at some point in their old age.

So, I don't think we can completely count off the effect of some old-age diseases to the gene pool, even if the person affected couldn't have own children any more. But in humans, the effect is still rather small overall. But think about many colonIal insects, for example: there individuals that have no chances whatsoever of passing on their genes (=workers/warriors) have a profound effect on the overall gene pool and natural selection of the species!